24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
I thought it was obvious she had some sort of personality dis-order ?
I'm surprised they didn't pick up on this and try and help her more, I don't think it was a case of her being 'very immature for a 19 year old'.
Having said that, unless she was formally diagnosed with something then I'm not sure what else the police can/could do, as one of them said 'they can't police everyone's lives'.
Best thing they could tell her was to move and stay the hell away.
Easier said than done though.
I'm surprised they didn't pick up on this and try and help her more, I don't think it was a case of her being 'very immature for a 19 year old'.
Having said that, unless she was formally diagnosed with something then I'm not sure what else the police can/could do, as one of them said 'they can't police everyone's lives'.
Best thing they could tell her was to move and stay the hell away.
Easier said than done though.
Sadly, the CPS’s default position in a “one word against the other” case seems to be a blanket no because there’s not realistic prospect of a conviction. I disagree with that because it should be down to a jury to listen to all the evidence, and evaluate one persons word over the other and decide. It’s all down to money (again).
It’s frustrating, especially when you see the reaction on social media - people generally slagging off the police for not doing enough, dropping the case, not trying hard enough for the victim... I think a vast slice of the general public don’t understand how the justice system works.
One of the braver aspects of this programme is showing cases such as last night where things are NFA’d and highlighting the reasons why. Lots of folk still don’t understand though...
It’s frustrating, especially when you see the reaction on social media - people generally slagging off the police for not doing enough, dropping the case, not trying hard enough for the victim... I think a vast slice of the general public don’t understand how the justice system works.
One of the braver aspects of this programme is showing cases such as last night where things are NFA’d and highlighting the reasons why. Lots of folk still don’t understand though...
timbob said:
Sadly, the CPS’s default position in a “one word against the other” case seems to be a blanket no because there’s not realistic prospect of a conviction. I disagree with that because it should be down to a jury to listen to all the evidence, and evaluate one persons word over the other and decide. It’s all down to money (again).
But when one person is personable and confident and the other is a weirdo who doesn't come across well... I wuldn't want to be the weird guy trying to argue the other person was wrong even when they're lying. I'd prefer one word against another cases, with zero corroboration or other evidence, were never prosecuted. Far too much potential for it to go horribly wrong.
In the cold light of a courtroom, where no one sees what is on TV, I suspect a defence barrister would convince a jury they simply cannot take the girls word over the mans esp when they had a relationship and the chances of guilty are probably low.
Whether the prosecution should 'chance it' and see what the jury says, its a tough one.
Whether the prosecution should 'chance it' and see what the jury says, its a tough one.
Pretty grim watching.
Aside from the violence, it sounded like the guy was trying to get the girl to "work" for him. Probably has a string of equally dodgy contacts, you can join the dots on the rest.
What was the girl's family background? They mentioned a grandmother but I don't recall the parents being discussed.
Aside from the violence, it sounded like the guy was trying to get the girl to "work" for him. Probably has a string of equally dodgy contacts, you can join the dots on the rest.
What was the girl's family background? They mentioned a grandmother but I don't recall the parents being discussed.
timbob said:
Sadly, the CPS’s default position in a “one word against the other” case seems to be a blanket no because there’s not realistic prospect of a conviction.
Devils advocate, but it goes to court and what evidence is there against the defendant?One persons story vs another.
One person with a fractured skull, but no idea how it happened (not even an accusation against the defendant).
One person with photos which they have kept on their own phone of themselves tied up in (apparently) consensual bondage poses (apparently consensual as they haven't been deleted, or presented by the defendant as evidence - rather recovered by the police in the act if trying to identify an unconscious victim)
The statement that the relationship was based around taking drugs, drinking, and violent sex.
Doubtful the previous "NFA" arrests would be able to be brought up in court.
Its obvious to anyone watching what the real picture is, but as the officers themselves said, very little chance of proving that beyond reasonable doubt, as there is zero physical/digital evidence.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff